Francesca Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Then guess what will happen ? Spring Cleaning 2010, with a diffrent group on here screaming, what did we do to deserve such harsh terms. I meant that other alliances would take over and act that way, if we dish out harsh terms now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Surrender terms. They’re on everyone’s minds at the moment. What shall we do about the vanquished Hegemony? So far, we've seen the harshest terms in history handed out to the former Hegemony alliances. Echelon was the latest example of this, when they were told to pay extensive reps and Caffine was excluded from government, among other restrictions. NPO were offered terms designed to destroy their alliance, and they declined them. However, when Karma started out, they condemned harsh surrender terms. Why the discrepancy? This is about where I stopped reading. Good job buying into the NPO's propaganda. The harshest terms in history? Don't make me laugh. Where's the viceroy? The re-writing of the charter? The expulsion of members? The indefinite decommission of their nuclear arsenal? The wonder decom? Edited July 8, 2009 by NoFish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRa Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) I'm not saying that Pacifica will necessarily reform, but I'm saying that the way that we handle terms for this war will influence the actions of alliances and other sides in the political situation in months, perhaps years, to come. Anything less than the current series of terms given to them will almost certainly lead to them simply rebuilding within months via mass recruitment and aid drops taking their revenge. And if we are lenient again they will simply recover, gain new allies, and come after Karma alliances when the time is right, taking them down one at a time and killing them off by one by one by outnumbering and outgunning them. Their past has shown that the Pacificans like to win and hate to lose, if nothing else their past has shown that they are incapable of making fair fights and seem to only take actual diplomatic action against rival powers when they cannot simply run in and slaughter/back stab them without warning. Their sin is pride, they are too proud to see that they are wrong, too proud to accept that they are not wanted and too proud to simply back off, stand down and allow for other's to equal them in terms of arms and strength. They will not learn, they will not change and they will never truly accept anyone who can pose any true threat to exist outside their sphere of influence. Edited July 8, 2009 by ShinRa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I meant that other alliances would take over and act that way, if we dish out harsh terms now. Please show me your reasoning for that, because as far as i can see, their is no precedent for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Echelon should have surrendered earlier when these terms were first offered to them. If they had done so it would have been much easier on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Please show me your reasoning for that, because as far as i can see, their is no precedent for that. Previously, when harsh terms have been handed out, the practice has not ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Previously, when harsh terms have been handed out, the practice has not ended. The same people were giving out those terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Yeah, They were bad in the past. Lets do what they did! /sarcasm I don't think anyone has requested a viceroy for the NPO, EZI for Moo and his cronies, or disbandment. Sorry, Karma isn't the same by any means. As you know, I was Vox, and I am perfectly aware of NPO's sins. I'm not arguing that they were wonderful people, or that they deserve to be let off lightly. I'm arguing that by giving them reasonable terms, we will prevent a new Pacifica from arising, and that the standards that Pacifica set in place will be removed. Or we can just make them pay, and teach them that actions such as that have consequences, and that we will no longer tolerate it. It's far more effective, and fair. Heres my solution for everyone, Since they were bad in the past and like their evil and their like tyrants. Okay, we should just like totally be as bad as they are. Then we should like give them terms they cant afford. Then declare war and destroy them! They can afford the terms. Don't be dramatic. Stop with the comparisons too, as Karma clearly, is a far more lenient group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 This is about where I stopped reading. Good job buying into the NPO's propaganda. The harshest terms in history? Don't make me laugh. Where's the viceroy? The re-writing of the charter? The expulsion of members? The indefinite decommission of their nuclear arsenal? The wonder decom? Id rather decom a nuke then pay 3bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I meant that other alliances would take over and act that way, if we dish out harsh terms now. I don't see how the terms offered to NPO are going to make any difference to the way the alliances which are now in positions of power will act in the future. Do you have any reasoning to go with this bold assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I don't think anyone has requested a viceroy for the NPO, EZI for Moo and his cronies, or disbandment. Go and read the Vox boards again, just before we disbanded. Or we can just make them pay, and teach them that actions such as that have consequences, and that we will no longer tolerate it.It's far more effective, and fair. That would be the most effective way of getting rid of Pacifica, but not of the things Pacifica did that made it so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Or we can just make them pay, and teach them that actions such as that have consequences, and that we will no longer tolerate it.It's far more effective, and fair. From the Vox Prerogative: Section 4. Vox Populi begrudges and condemns the imposition of strident surrender terms, and declares that it shall not offer them to fallen foes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 From the Vox Prerogative: Uh oh someone just got.... Teehee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I don't see how the terms offered to NPO are going to make any difference to the way the alliances which are now in positions of power will act in the future. Do you have any reasoning to go with this bold assertion? Setting an example, and removing the standards that the Hegemony has put in place, so that this sort of thing will no longer be considered normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Id rather decom a nuke then pay 3bill How about not having any nukes for a year? Although to be honest, it's not like GPA needs nukes anyway. They're not even a good deterrent because they've already shown they won't fire them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Harsh Surrender terms arent good is the point of this. Also, When alliances die under harsh terms, It gets blamed on the ones who gave the harsh terms.. Have you ever read the story of the \m/om who died? The man who gave those terms was blamed on killing the \m/om. It wasnt pretty it gave him a bad rep when he didnt really kill the \m/om. Edited July 8, 2009 by Rotavele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Previously, when harsh terms have been handed out, the practice has not ended. That's your argument? Previously, harsh terms were handed out to INNOCENT alliances, or alliances undeserving of harsh terms. Of course it didn't end the practice. If NPO had previously been handed harsh terms you might have a point, but as of now, you don't have a leg to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Surrender terms. They’re on everyone’s minds at the moment. What shall we do about the vanquished Hegemony? So far, we've seen the harshest terms in history handed out to the former Hegemony alliances. I stopped reading after this - the lies and the propaganda have really gotten quite ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 From the Vox Prerogative: Vague wording is vague. Who is to say what is and isn't "strident"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 The abyss quote was absolutely unavoidable in this topic. All you need to do is remember that it's the "Karma Coalition", not the "Forgive and Forget Coalition". Sic Semper Tyrannus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Vague wording is vague. Who is to say what is and isn't "strident"? Great... A Lawyer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I don't think anyone has requested a viceroy for the NPO, EZI for Moo and his cronies, or disbandment.Sorry, Karma isn't the same by any means. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=60767 Nobody has suggested a viceroy except these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 That's your argument? Previously, harsh terms were handed out to INNOCENT alliances, or alliances undeserving of harsh terms. Of course it didn't end the practice. If NPO had previously been handed harsh terms you might have a point, but as of now, you don't have a leg to stand on. What is your point? Harsh terms as a whole need to end, regardless of perceived "innocence." I stopped reading after this - the lies and the propaganda have really gotten quite ridiculous Why would a former Vox member write propaganda for NPO? Or lie, for that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Why people are arguing for light terms is beyond me. If a corrupt judge is sentencing petty thieves to twenty years for stealing, why should he get half that once he gets caught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Vague wording is vague. Who is to say what is and isn't "strident"? From Vox's perspective, those terms were strident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts